Senator Kaye raised a point of order to confirm that a quorum was present.
Sixteen members were present at the opening gavel, constituting a quorum.

CHANCELLOR’S REPORT

Best wishes for the holiday season and for a refreshing break spent with
family and friends. Public Safety has been in the news recently, and recent
event show that they do a good job of keeping the campus community informed as
soon as something happens. This is the best way to keep rumors in check. Should
rumors begin, don’t hesitate to call the Director of Public Safety, Randy
Christopherson, or the Chancellor. The circulation of accurate information is
essential. Recent exciting national and international events on our campus made
important contributions to the community: General Wesley Clark visited; an
International Scholars program began in cooperation with St. Norbert College;
the International Social Justice Seminar was highly successful. Issues on the
Chancellor’s mind of late: Diversity--we’ve made more progress retaining
students of color than faculty or staff of color in recent years. Campus
climate, gender and power relationship issues remain concerns. Do people feel
they can speak freely and openly on important matters? Is this a place people
enjoy coming to work each day? Change must come not from the Chancellor but from
a general willingness to engage important issues as a community.

ACTION ITEM

1. Faculty Status for Lecturers. Presented by University Committee
Chair, Clifford Abbott. Following the discussion at the November Senate meeting,
the UC modified its proposed version of 51.12. That version was previously
distributed along with the version passed by the Senate (September 2002) but
never implemented.

Abbott clarified linkages between pay levels and ranks of Academic Staff.
Each rank has a minimum level of pay associate with it but there is not
necessarily a maximum. Therefore, it is theoretically possible to increase
salary of a teaching academic staff member without promotion in rank. Where an
individual’s salary falls below the minimum, however, promotion in rank will
result in an automatic pay increase.

Senator Logan moved approval (with second) of the University Committee’s
proposal to amend 51.12.

Senator Kaye expressed reservations about granting faculty status to
lecturers for three reasons: 1. High numbers of lecturers with faculty status
can determine results of unit elections. 2. Lecturers with faculty status could
also make curricular decisions. 3. There is a danger of expanding the number of
teaching academic staff at the expense of tenure-track positions. He is
uncomfortable with major decisions being made by people whose renewal depends on
a unit chair’s decision, and he feels that faculty status should be reserved
for tenure-track faculty. Having said this, Kaye realizes that removing faculty
status is not under consideration. Senator Null asks what the effect of a
negative vote would be on this section of code—would the previous Senate
action prevail? Abbott explained that administration did not fully approve the
Senate changes of September 2002. The current version is an effort to
accommodate the interests of the Provost. If today’s motion is defeated, it is
likely to mean that negotiations for changing 51.12 will continue. While he
agrees with some of Senator Kaye’s concerns, he doesn’t see them as reasons
to vote against this proposal since it is meant to put decisions on granting
faculty status in the hands of Executive Committees. Senator Logan reminded the
Senate that the entire issue of faculty status is not on the agenda but could be
revisited at a later date. The Speaker asked, somewhat in vain, that discussion
be limited to the proposal. Senator Haynie does not see representation of those
who teach here as a bad. Senator Kaye responded that long-term teaching academic
staff positions do not protect anyone, but represent a disadvantage by
precluding any eventual protection of tenure.

Senator Bradfield requested further clarification of the effect of a negative
vote. The Speaker ruled that without administrative approval, last year’s
Senate action is nullified, and a negative vote today would leave the previous
version (the one still part of the current handbook) in place. At the request of
Senator Kaye, the Secretary read that version.

The motion as presented received 18 votes in favor, 3 votes against with 5
abstentions. Before the Speaker could announce the vote, there was some
parliamentary discussion about the number needed to pass. The Parliamentarian
read code that requiresthat amendments to codification "carry by a
two-thirds majority of the Faculty Senate." Depending on whether the two ex
officio members count toward the total or not, a two-thirds vote was either
19 or 20. With 18 votes, a motion would fail in either case. Senator Abbott
requested a recount, which the Speaker ruled in order (with the welcome
parliamentary expertise of the Chancellor who pointed out that re-voting is in
order since the Speaker had not yet announced the outcome.) Senator Kaye
objected to voting again without first getting further information on the number
of instructional academic staff on campus to better inform the vote. The vote
resulted in 18 votes in favor, 5 votes against and 3 abstentions. [There
were 26 Senators present; one having left earlier, so all votes were counted]. The
motion failed.

Senator Davis suggested that the closeness of the vote probably means that
the proposal needs to be reconsidered. No formal motion to do so forthcoming,
discussion of the issue concluded.

2. House Rules for the Senate. Presented by UC Chair Abbott. The
proposal returns in the same form it had at last month’s discussion. Abbott
acknowledged that the UC did consider Senator Kaye’s request that Senate
proxies be allowed, but said that, since current code disallows proxies in the
Senate, that code would first need to be changed before becoming a House rule. A
motion was made to adopt the House Rules as presented.

Given the previous parliamentary discussion, Senator Logan felt some thought
needs to be given to deciding whether ex officio members count toward
quorum and membership totals and whether current code means a two-thirds vote of
the Senate membership, or of those present at the meeting and voting (which is
his conviction). There being no further discussion, the motion passed
unanimously, 26 in favor with no negative votes or abstentions.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. Student-led Courses. UC Chair Abbott presented the topic for
discussion without any particular recommendation from the UC at this point. It
stems from a question brought to the UC about whether these courses should
continue to be included in the catalog. The UC was divided on the issue of
eliminating the student-led course option. Statistics show that the option is
not frequently used. There have been no instances since 1999, and over the last
25 years there have been about twenty. The discussion was animated and basically
revolved around three points: A- The need for information (Where are the
guidelines the Catalog mentions? How are courses proposed and approved? How are
they graded? What is the role (what are the responsibilities) of the faculty
adviser or supervisor?) B- Functional concerns (Thought needed on
questions of accountability and confidentiality. What are the ramifications of a
student leader bailing out? Should faculty advisers be compensated or should
these courses be treated like independent studies? Peer grading is problematic.)
C- The value of student-led courses (Students interested in this option
are frequently highly motivated and shouldn’t be discouraged. Why would we
want to give up one of our earliest campus legacies?)

Senator Null commented that the student-led course form "speaks to us
from 30 years ago" of a certain academic "looseness" and
"trust in faculty." The question for us is whether we have become too
uncomfortable with this approach and wish to deny it, or whether we regret that
we are no longer a place like the one that gave rise to such expressions, and
wish to reaffirm those roots. Others, including the Chancellor, returned
periodically to this theme. If the idea of student-led courses is a good one,
find out why the option is not often used, and find a way to make it work well.
Discussion will continue at a later meeting.

INFORMATION ITEMS

1. Report of the Provost (written report distributed). The Provost was
in Madison.

2. University Committee Report. Presented by UC Chair Clifford Abbott,
who outlined some of the issues before the UC that may come to the Senate in the
near future: 1) Open meeting laws and changes in our code that may be necessary
to conform to the law. The UC has advised the Personnel Council not to use its
right (according to State law) to go into closed session until inconsistencies
between state law and our code can be studied. We need a better sense of what is
allowed, what is not and, within the scope of the law, what parameters we wish
to adopt for meetings, particularly where personnel reviews are involved. 2) The
Provost has asked for information on mechanisms and procedures by which
curriculum is set and changed. 3) A proposal has come forward to change
admission requirements by requiring the writing sample that is an option with
the ACT. This is currently before the Student Affairs Committee. 4) Discussion
and debate regarding consequences of Board of Regents policy on credit transfer
from Technical Colleges to UW campuses. 5) System Faculty Representatives are
interested in determining whether there is a point at which the number of
instructional academic staff as a proportion of tenure-track faculty becomes
unhealthy for an institution. Currently before the Senate Committee on Planning
and Budget. 6) The UC is planning to get together next semester with the
Academic Staff Committee and the Student Government Committee to talk about
shared concerns and ways to strengthen governance on campus.

OPEN FORUM

1. Faculty advocacy, ombudsperson, and campus climate. Senator
Hencheck reports feedback from his unit indicating support for an advocacy
committee able to intervene before matters come to a grievance--as long as
individuals feel that the process is safe and confidential. Senator Null asked
to hear from Chancellor Shepard regarding the dual roles of ombudsperson and
University Counsel. The Chancellor obliged: An ombudsperson is someone "who
helps people find their way through the labyrinth of regulations," not an
advocate. A lawyer should be an appropriate person to help in this manner.
Advocacy and how that is achieved is a separate question. Line officers of the
University should be the ones with an advocacy roll since they have the power to
effect change. Although there is always a potential for conflict of interest
when legal counsel and ombudsperson are the same, he has not found that to be
the case in actual practice. Whenever there is a case that had potential for
conflict, Melissa Jackson stepped out. If necessary, the Chancellor would then
deal with lawyers in Madison rather than risk potential conflict for campus
Counsel. A bigger question is "How much does the perception that
there might be a conflict of interest limit willingness to use the
ombudsperson?" He doesn’t have an answer to that question but knows that
we don’t have the resources to appoint a new administrator to handle this
role. If there is a conflict of interest problem limiting the role of the
ombudsperson (again, not an advocate) we can abolish that role. If that happens,
we should not create a new position but should rely on the administrators we
have to do their jobs.

Senator Null expressed surprise at the distinction between advocate and
ombudsperson, stating that there is little doubt that the Senate originally
intended both functions—at first understood as an advocate for women,
subsequently expanded to gender-neutral advocacy. Senator Abbott brought the
mentoring system into the discussion, wishing to know whether the sense is
prevalent that there has been a breakdown in the system. He and others mentioned
the fear of legal liabilities associated with mentoring. Null suggested that the
system is, indeed, in trouble because we have tried to institutionalize a
relationship that is best when it develops organically as part of the life of
the institution. Speaker Noppe points out that organic mentoring in the not too
distant past more frequently happened between males, leaving female faculty
adrift in the system. Formalizing the mentoring system was an effort to redress
the situation. Senator Rosewall believes that, if the ombudsperson does not meet
the need for advocacy, we need to identify someone who can, whether it is via
mentoring, a committee or takes some other shape.

A. Resolved that the Faculty Senate direct the University Committee to
propose changes to 51.12 that specify three ranks for instructional academic
staff: associate lecturer, lecturer (no prefix), and senior lecturer.

B. Resolved that the Faculty Senate direct the University Committee to
propose changes to 51.12 so that faculty status is linked to specific ranks.

C. Resolved that the Faculty Senate direct the University Committee to
propose changes to 51.12 so that faculty status is linked to responsibilities in
a position job description.

D. Resolved that the Faculty Senate direct the University Committee to retain
in any changes to 51.12 that granting faculty status requires the approval of
the University Committee.

E. Resolved that the Faculty Senate direct the University Committee to
grandfather current positions in any proposed changes to 51.

a. Review (whether required or by request) by interdisciplinary unit
executive committees, by the Personnel Council, by the interdisciplinary unit
professorial committees, or by the Committee of Six Full Professors, shall be
open unless the faculty member under consideration requests a closed review.

b. The faculty member under consideration shall be notified in writing 20
days (25 days if by first class mail) prior to the date of review of the time
and place of the review session and that he/she has the right to request that
the review be closed.

Proposed change in UWGB 3.08 (5) (a) and (b)

5. Conduct of the Review for Promotion and Renewal at all Ranks

a. Review (whether required or by request) by executive committees, by the
Personnel Council, by the interdisciplinary unit professorial committees, or
by the Committee of Six Full Professors, shall be open unless the reviewing
committee, in accordance with state law and proper notification, authorizes a
closed review. The faculty member under consideration has the right to attend
reviews, whether open or closed.

b. The faculty member under consideration shall be notified in writing 20
days (25 days if by first class mail) prior to the date of review of the time
and place of the review session.

To create a committee reporting to the Faculty Senate, called the Campus
Climate Committee, with equal faculty and academic staff representation (three
members each) charged to find ways of improving campus climate. This committee
shall:

a. consider the various mechanisms for improving climate, as well as
assisting individuals;

b. pilot those that are feasible over a year's time;

c. evaluate the results;

d. and report back to the Senate.

The problem

The need for improving campus climate is not solidly or specifically
documented but the anecdotal evidence is persistent and points to either a lack
of, or ignorance of, ways to redress perceived injustices short of formal
grievances and lawsuits. The assumption is that providing well known and
effective methods of redress will improve the campus climate. The current use of
an ombudsperson is limited by definition to the dispensing of legal and
procedural advice. Advocacy is not within the definition.

Rationale

Institutional climate depends on institutional culture and there may not be
any single best way to effect cultural change. UW-Green Bay has a prouder
history of studying itself and proposing change than actually achieving planned
change. It may be time to take a multiplicity of smaller steps and adjust as
needed rather than to continue to seek the optimal solution.

Possible mechanisms

The University Committee has considered the following six mechanisms along
with their strengths and weaknesses.

Ombudsperson - This mechanism is currently in place in the person of
Melissa Jackson, the University's legal counsel. Her legal training makes her an
excellent source of information and explanation of rules, policies, and
procedures, and many people have been bringing concerns to her as the
ombudsperson. Many, however, perceive her dual role as a conflict of interest
and although it is claimed that there are ways in place to resolve the conflict
of interest, a perceived partiality may be preventing others from using this
mechanism. Were any other person to serve in the role of ombudsperson, there may
inevitably be questions of knowledge, trust, and limits to advocacy.

EAP model - This mechanism identifies a network of individuals with
experience at this institution who are willing to advise and advocate for
persons seeking redress. The advantages over a single ombudsperson are the
distributed load of work and the freedom to advocate. The disadvantages are
finding and possibly training willing individuals.

External help - The possibility of bringing in an external
mediator/investigator has the advantage of impartiality and the disadvantage of
being unfamiliar with out institution. Cost may also be an issue unless some
reciprocal arrangement can be made with another institution or network.

Survey - This has the possibility of documenting and evaluating the
need for change in other mechanisms. The prime disadvantage is that it is very
easy to do bad and wasteful surveys. It takes some expertise and effort to do
well.

Mentoring - Existing mentoring experiences are a source of information
not currently being tapped for insights into climate issues. Mentoring, freely
chosen and offered, can be a terrific boost for individual and institutional
climate, but assigned mentoring can create vested interests in not complaining
about the relationship or in holding the relationship accountable for more than
it can deliver.

Advocacy committee - The Campus Climate Committee could offer itself
(or some other group) as an advocacy committee that invites individuals to bring
their concerns to the committee. The advantage of a committee is that trust,
advice, expertise, and problem-solving are distributed in a group rather than a
single individual. The disadvantage is that the workload is unknown and the more
people involved the harder it is to assure confidentiality.

The district may not send proxies to any senate meeting to replace its
elected senator.

52.03 B. 2.

The academic budgetary unit chairperson shall call a meeting to elect senate
representatives for vacant positions in November of each academic year.

Current House Rules for the Faculty Senate

#6 Proxy, absences, subs

Senators may be replaced as per 52.05 for the remainder of their terms, but
if a Senator cannot make a particular meeting, there shall be no voting by proxy
or substitution as per 52.03 B. 4.

Proposed

Codification

52.03 B. 4.

A district may elect an alternate for any of its senators and the alternate
may attend and vote at Senate meetings that the regular senator is unable to
attend.

52.03 B. 2

The academic budgetary unit chairperson shall call a meeting to elect senate
representatives, and alternates, for vacant positions in November of each
academic year.

Proposed House Rules for the Faculty Senate

#6 Senators may be replaced as per 52.05 for the remainder of their terms. If
a Senator cannot make a particular meeting, there shall be no voting by proxy,
but a duly elected alternate may attend and vote as per [proposed] 52.03 B. 4.

I am delighted to be able to announce the membership of the new Academic
Affairs Planning Committee, except for the student representative who is yet to
be appointed. The following colleagues have agreed to serve on this committee:

Faculty:

Phil Clampitt (Information and Computing Sciences)

Sally Dresdow (Business Administration)

Pat Ragan (Education)

Denise Scheberle (Public and Environmental Affairs)

Academic Staff:

Diana Borrero-Lowe (American Intercultural Center)

Leanne Hansen (Cofrin Library)

Andy Speth (Learning Technology Center)

Mike Stearny (Student Development)

Student: (to be determined)

Division Heads:

Sue Hammersmith (Provost/Vice Chancellor) – chair

Carol Blackshire-Belay (Liberal Arts and Sciences)

Fritz Erickson (Professional and Graduate Studies)

Sue Keihn (Student Affairs)

Kathy Pletcher (Information Services)

Jan Thornton (Outreach and Extension)

Additional appointment for staff/consultation support:

Lucy Arendt (Assessment Services)

I am grateful to all who agreed to serve in this capacity. We will keep the
Faculty Senate apprised of our work on an ongoing basis.

II. COMMENCEMENT

Thanks to all faculty and academic staff who participated in our mid-year
Commencement last month. The event was wonderful, and Wisconsin poet laureate
Ellen Kort gave a commencement address that I will actually remember!

As we debrief from our December Commencement and begin planning the upcoming
2004 Spring Commencement, we would welcome any suggestions or criticisms you may

have and will use campus input for continuous improvement in this event.
Please give any comments, criticisms, or suggestions to Sue Hammersmith, Tim
Sewall, or your dean.

III. FACULTY SEARCHES

Many faculty searches are underway, and I am eager to see the results of your
efforts this year. The first unit to bring a faculty search to fruition this
year was Business Administration, which succeeded in hiring a new Marketing
faculty member. Later this semester, all the faculty and units who participated
in the new faculty hiring process this year will be invited to provide their
feedback and suggestions, so that the process may be further improved, as
needed, before the coming year’s hiring season arrives.

IV. PT. SABLE ROOM RESERVED

The heating system for the Pt. Sable Room is now up and running again! Each
day from 11:30 AM until 1:30 PM, that room will be reserved for faculty and
staff. Free coffee and tea will be available in that room while supplies last. I
encourage faculty and staff to utilize this space to relax, to share fellowship
and collegial conversation with their colleagues, or to gather for discussion or
specific topics or issues. This usage will be evaluated at the end of the
semester as to how this gathering place (or others) can best been used to
nurture collegial relations and discussion among faculty and staff from all
across our institution